The jurisdiction of the court of chancery with
regard to public nuisances is founded on the
irreparable damage to individuals, or the great
public injury which is likely to ensue. Indeed, it
may be affirmed that in no well-considered [sic]
case has the power of a court of equity to interfere
by injunction in cases of public nuisance been
denied, the only denial ever being that of a
necessity for the exercise of that jurisdiction
under the circumstances of the particular case.

The decision to utilize an advisory jury where there is no right to a
jury is entirely discretionary. See Glanzman v. Schaffer, 252 F.2d 333,
334 (2d Cir. 1958). It is said to be not subject to review on appeal. See
Mallory v. Citizens Utilities Co., 342 F.2d 796, 797 (2d Cir. 1965);
Major v. Phillips-Jones Corp., 192 F.2d 186, 189 (2d Cir. 1951).

Advisory juries are particularly useful in cases in which "there are
special factors . . . which suggest that a jury composed of members of the
community would provide the Court valuable guidance in making its own
findings and conclusions." Skoldberg v. Villani, 601 F. Supp. 981, 982
(S.D.N.Y. 1985). Because advisory juries permit community participation
and may incorporate the public's views of morality and changing common
law, their use is particularly appropriate in cases involving
community-based standards. See, e.g., Birnbaum v. United States,
436 F. Supp. 967, 988 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) (using an advisory jury to aid in
the determination of whether the distress suffered was of the sort that
would be experienced by reasonable people under the circumstances and the
extent of compensation needed), aff'd in relevant part, 588 F.2d 319 (2d
Cir. 1978); State ex rel. Leis v. William S. Barton Co., 344 N.E.2d 342,
351 (Ohio App. 1975) (discussing the use of an advisory jury in light of
community based obscenity standards); McNary v. Carlton, 527 S.W.2d 343,
348 (Mo. 1975) (ordering the use of an advisory jury in light of
community based obscenity standards). See generally Note, Practice and
Potential of the Advisory Jury, 100 Harv. L. Rev. 1363, 1371-76 (1987).

Views on important issues impinging on national public policy may be
obtained from advisory juries. See, e.g., Marcus v. Iowa Public
Television, 97 F.3d 1137, 1138 (8th Cir. 1996) (action concerning
injunction of a public television broadcast of political debates in a
congressional election where the station excluded minor-party
candidates); Kaniff v. United States., 2002 WL 370210 (N.D. Ill. 2002)
(suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress and false
imprisonment as a result of an extensive customs search on a suspicion of
drug smuggling); Andrade v. United States, 116 F. Supp.2d 778 (W.D. Tex.
2000) (case arising out of the storming of the Branch Davidian compound
in Waco, Texas by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation); Birnbaum v. United States,
436 F. Supp. 967 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) (action against the C.I.A. for opening
and inspecting first class mail), aff'd in relevant part. 588 F.2d 319
(2d Cir. 1978); see also In re Agent Orange Product Liability
Litigation, 580 F. Supp. 1242, 1256 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) (stating that the
court would "probably request an advisory jury").

Commonly advisory juries provide aid in determining whether a tort or
other violation of the law has occurred. They have been used to assist in
a court's determination of whether a public nuisance exists. For
example, in a claim to enjoin the operation of a landfill, a South
Carolina court convened a jury to advise on whether the landfill
constituted a public nuisance by virtue of its location and method of
operation. Neal v. Darby, 318 S.E.2d 18 (S.C. 1984). Advisory juries have
also been employed in actions alleging private nuisance. See, e.g.,
Carroll v. Hurst, 431 N.E.2d 1344 (Ill.App. Ct. 1982) (private nuisance
claim against landowner for maintaining a junkyard on his property); Town
of Hokes Bluff v. Butler, 404 So.2d 623 (Ala. 1981) (suit against city
alleging that a proposed sewer lagoon was a private nuisance); Rode v.
Sealtite Insulation Mfg. Corp., 88 N.W.2d 345 (Wis. 1958) (private
nuisance suit for offensive smoke, gases, particles, and odors against
the owner of a local manufacturing plant).

They have been helpful as an aid to the court in determining the
appropriateness of injunctive relief. See, e.g., Marcus v. Iowa Public
Television, 97 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 1996) (advisory jury asked to assess
whether the harm done to an Iowa Public Broadcasting network by enjoining
the broadcast of political debates featuring the Republican and
Democratic candidates for Congress would outweigh the benefits to
plaintiffs, third party candidates, and registered voters). There is no
reason to deny a court which has empaneled an advisory jury for help on
the question of liability the benefit of the jury's judgment on the
appropriateness and scope of the relief to be granted. Such juries may be
useful to the court in determining the form of relief. Frequently they
have been asked to determine the amount of damages with or without
injunctive relief. See, e.g., Alexander v. Gerhardt Enterprises, Inc.,
40 F.3d 187 (7th Cir. 1994); Ragin v. Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co.,
801 F. Supp. 1213 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Birnbaum v. United
States,
436 F. Supp. 967 (E.D.N.Y. 1977), aff'd in relevant part, 588 F.2d 319
(2d Cir. 1978).

D. Public Nuisance

A public nuisance in New York "consists of conduct or omissions which
offend, interfere with or cause damage to the public in the exercise of
rights common to all in a manner such as to offend public morals,
interfere with use by the public of a public place or endanger or injure
the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of
persons." Copart Industries, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York,
41 N.Y.2d 564 (1977) (internal citations omitted).

IV. Application of Law to Facts

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of restrictions on the
marketing and distribution of handguns. The demand that defendants supply
funds to abate the nuisance is ancillary to the primary issue; it does
not affect the equitable nature of the case. See 8 Moore, supra, §
38.30[3]; Teamsters v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558, 571 (1990) (citing Tull v.
U.S., 481 U.S. 412, 424 (1987)) (monetary relief "incidental to or
intertwined with injunctive relief" may be deemed equitable); United
States v. Wade, 653 F. Supp. 11, 13 (E.D. Pa.) (recovery of costs
incurred in abating a nuisance "is in the nature of equitable
restitution"). The monetary relief sought by plaintiff is not
compensatory or punitive in nature, and thus is incidental to the
injunctive remedy sought. There is no right to a trial by jury in this
case.

Even when accepting the aid of an advisory jury, the court will make
its own independent findings of fact and conclusions of law as required
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). See, e.g., DeFelice v. American
Int'l Life Ins., 112 F.3d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that a trial
court using an advisory jury must both make "its own factual findings and
conclusions, in reliance upon the advisory jury's verdict if the court so
chooses, and . . . explain how it arrived at those findings and
conclusions").

Utilization of an advisory jury is proper in the instant case, both to
advise the court on the question of whether defendant gun manufacturers
and distributors have created a public nuisance and, if so, to provide
guidance on the nature of appropriate injunctive relief. There is no
reason to deny the court in this case the benefit of the guidance of an
advisory jury on both issues in this matter since it is of large moment
to the safety of the residents of this district, plaintiff who claims
injury, and defendants, who are selling a lawful product under
substantial government regulation.

It is appropriate to take into consideration the values and standards
of the community through the use of an advisory jury in determining
whether the conduct of the defendant gun manufacturers and distributors
illegally endangers the public health, safety, and peace. The views of an
advisory jury may be "an important part of the data taken into
consideration in arriving at the court's independent conclusion."
Birnbaum v. United States, 436 F. Supp. 967, 988 (1977), aff'd in
relevant part, 588 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1978). This case implicates
important questions of public policy, adding weight to advice from a jury
representative of our diverse community'.

V. Conclusion

The parties will consult with each other and the court to select an
advisory jury and to instruct it on its duties.

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.